UPSC Ethics Simplified: What is patriotism and who embodies it more—soldiers or civilians?
UPSC Ethics Simplified draws attention to topics related to applied ethics, especially those making headlines. Recently, UPSC has been focusing on contemporary issues and posing ethical questions to candidates. In the past, we have examined pollution, war, sports, finance, international relations, bureaucracy and judiciary through the lens of ethics. Today, Nanditesh Nilay, who writes fortnightly for UPSC Essentials, discusses a pressing question —what is patriotism, and who embodies it more—soldiers or civilians?
We are just three months away from August—a month forever etched in the heart of every Indian as a symbol of freedom, sacrifice, and national pride. As the nation prepares to commemorate its independence, we saw our country facing a different kind of conflict—one defined by terrorism and uncertainty.
In response to terrorism, our armed forces carried out an unparalleled mission—Operation Sindoor—which successfully destroyed numerous terrorist hideouts. India stood united, demonstrating a powerful surge of patriotic fervour in one voice.
Undoubtedly, the Indian Armed Forces once again proved to the world that a soldier embodies patriotism, and patriotism lives through the soldier. In India, patriotism wears a uniform.
The daily press conferences served as a testament to this truth. A soldier is trained to fight and defend the nation—and, without hesitation, is prepared to lay down his or her life for the protection of the motherland.
What about the civilians who are equally patriotic—those who carry their own script of devotion to the nation? In their narrative, certainty often outweighs the uncertainties faced by soldiers. Yet, their commitment to the country can be just as intense.
Do they feel the same urgency for the nation—a sense that nothing is more important than the country itself? It raises a timeless question: What is patriotism, and who embodies it more—soldiers or civilians?
The meaning of patriotism is defined in the standard dictionary, i.e., love for one's country. In political philosophy, and particularly in the works of Stephen Nathanson, who explores the subtle issues surrounding patriotism, a few key points emerge. Nathanson believes that special affection for one's country, a concern for the well-being of the country, and a willingness to promote ideas or actions that can benefit the country are central to the essence of patriotism.
Simon Keller, while examining patriotism, suggests that the spirit of patriotism involves a deeper commitment to the country, where the ethical virtues of the self and the nation are aligned and objective.
And what about the subject of morality in patriotism?
There are different types of patriotism, including the extreme version championed by Machiavelli, where the moral question of right or wrong is often set aside in favor of national loyalty. In contrast, philosopher Marcia Baron advocated for a more moderate or liberal form of patriotism. She believed that 'with respect to certain matters and within limits, it is good for an American to judge as an American, and to put American interests first.'
While soldiers prioritize the defense of their country, what about the middle class and their interests? Patriotism is often defined as love and devotion to one's country—the gravitational pull that attracts soldiers to serve. Beyond politics, religion, caste, or class — it is rooted in a people's love and integrity for their country, their fellow citizens, and their nation.
Those who reside on a piece of land must show the utmost love, care, and integrity for that space—not just as individuals but by fostering an environment of respect, empathy, and care for all who constitute the national ecosystem. This collective sense of duty is what drives the pride in defending and protecting the motherland.
Gratitude, in this context, becomes the central virtue of patriotism. Maurizio Viroli writes, 'We have a moral obligation towards our country because we are indebted to it. We owe our country our life, our education, our language, and, in most fortunate cases, our liberty. If we want to be moral persons, we must return what we have received, at least in part, by serving the common good.'
Why not civilians, too? If you were asked this question in India's most difficult personality test—the UPSC interview—what should come to mind? It is believed that all citizens love their country as deeply as anyone. But do soldiers commit themselves to the country solely because of their work or responsibility? There is something spiritual in patriotism that resonates deeply among soldiers in uniform. Does this same spirit flow as strongly through the veins of other citizens? Do civilians in particular get influenced by the echoes of religion and caste?
An illiterate person may have an excuse, but what about the so-called literate and resourceful class at the top of society? What is even more discouraging and hurtful is when some weave the narrative of religion around soldiers, too. How would you answer such questions in your examination or interview, and, more importantly, as a future civil servant serving and facing society? Think, dear aspirants.
There is an interesting story of Siyaram. This hero of R.K. Narayan's novel 'Waiting for the Mahatma' meets Bapu but hesitates to sit near him. However, he promises that in the next meeting, he will appear as a new Siyaram. It is here that Mahatma Gandhi explains to him the meaning of independence—that independence does not mean becoming something new, but rather understanding oneself with a sense of humanity and knowing oneself better.
Here, as civilians who do not understand the meaning of independence, we have missed something. We began to strive to become 'someone or something else.'
The feeling of inferiority and superiority complex loomed large, which ultimately transformed this class of citizens into more of a managerial class or a 'manager' rather than citizens. Although this term was originally associated with industrial outputs and managing the workforce, ironically, the term 'manager' became a part and parcel of behavior. Whether in the home or in the office, the role of a manager was all about those counted numbers. Data became datum, and a person became a manager. But what about a patriotic citizen?
Swami Vivekananda reminds us and defines patriotism as serving the motherland from the bottom of the heart. He said that no one can protect his or her country's respect if they cannot first honor their own mother. He asks, 'How could one feed another's mother? First, feed your own mother well, and then you can feed others. Never fail to serve your motherland.' This sentiment is echoed in the Ten Commandments, a major document of Western morality. The wording of the Ten Commandments is universal and impartial, reminding us to 'honor your father and your mother.'
A self that learns to evolve without the constant presence of 'I' rises above its baser instincts and moves toward a higher state of being—a self-sufficient self. Serving the country begins with gratitude: gratitude for the motherland and for fellow citizens.
Patriotism, then, is not just a feeling; it is a moral commitment—a quiet but firm resolve to accept others and oneself within the boundaries of service, love, courage, peace, and togetherness. It is, at its core, the embodiment of the Golden Rule of Ethics: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'
What is patriotism? Is there a difference between the patriotism of a soldier and that of a civilian? Discuss.
(The writer is the author of 'Being Good and Aaiye, Insaan Banaen', 'Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness' and 'Kyon'. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to UPSC, SAARC countries, Civil services Academy, National Centre for Good Governance, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Competition Commission of India (CCI), etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (concepts and caselets) fortnightly.)
Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.
Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
"Why are you wasting time on a quack?": Pawan Khera hits out at Nishikant Dubey for questioning Indira Gandhi over Shimla Agreement
Congress leader Pawan Khera on Monday slammed BJP MP Nishikant Dubey , who questioned former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi over the Shimla agreement . Pawan Khera called Nishikant Dubey a "quack" and urged the media not to pay attention to him. Taking a dig at Nishikant Dubey, the Congress leader said that he is not even a student from " WhatsApp University " but of "WhatsApp Nursery". Khera further asked Dubey to go to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and discontinue the Shimla Agreement. "Why are you (the media) wasting time on a quack? These are not even students of WhatsApp University but of WhatsApp nursery. Ask him to go to the PMO and tell them to discontinue the Simla Agreement. Why is he wasting time?", Pawan Khera told ANI. Earlier, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey targeted former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, alleging that she signed the Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan under the pressure of the United States. Sharing a document of a Rajya Sabha debate on 'X', Nishikant Dubey questioned why Indian governed 5000 square mile territory was given to Pakistan by India's "iron lady".The BJP MP further queried why 57 Indian soldiers killed in Pakistan's jail dispute were returning the 93000 Pakistsoldiers, who had surrendered after the 1971 war. Live Events Nishikant Dubey mentioned that former Defence Minister Mahavir Tyagi had raised these questions, but former Indian PM Indira Gandhi left them unanswered. Earlier on Sunday, Nishikant Dubey slammed Rahul Gandhi , questioning the motives of the Congress leader to encourage learning English rather than local languages while also alluding to the "hypocrisy" of opposing the National Education Police (NEP) 2020 for language choice, stating that the 1986 NEP had similar goals. "Rahul Gandhi ji, your investigative advisor is hell bent on destroying you. This is the education policy of 1986 given by your father to the country. in this, your father is promising the country to promote Hindi, teach the Sanskrit language and translate English into regional languages. This same education policy is almost in place now. Students should also grow with regional languages, changes in this have been made by Prime Minister Modi ji in 2020," Dubey said in a post on X in Hindi.
The Wire
21 minutes ago
- The Wire
Why Indian Rivers Should Be Granted the Rights They Deserve
As North Eastern states experience disasters under flooding, rivers wreaking havoc, parts of the country also see an extreme season with the drying of its rivers having adversarial impact on soil, agriculture, and livelihoods of millions on depend upon it. Rivers and their critical vitality in shaping, managing and nurturing livelihoods have captured imagination of writers, artists, and scholars for centuries. In the ancient Hindu imagination, the Ganga is not a river. She is a mother. A bearer of life. A witness to history. For thousands of years, poets, priests, and pilgrims have also knelt at her banks, offering flowers and ashes alike. But in the courtroom, such reverence has not translated into responsibility. For Indian rivers today, personhood is poetry – but not yet law. And yet, the idea is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. If the river has a legal standing in a court of law In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna 'living entities' with the rights of a legal person. For a brief moment, the river had standing in a court of law. It could, in theory, sue a polluter, resist a dam, or demand its flow be restored. But the decision was swiftly stayed by the Supreme Court, citing practical difficulties: Who would represent the river? Who would be liable if the river 'committed' harm, like flooding? The Ganga returned to her pre-modern role: sacred but silent. Eight years later, in 2025, the waters are rising again – this time not just in volume, but in voice. Earlier this year, Rajya Sabha MP Satnam Singh Sandhu too introduced a bill proposing that Indian rivers be granted legal personhood through statute. In a nation where rivers are worshipped yet routinely strangled by concrete and sewage, the symbolism is powerful. But what matters more is the potential shift in power: from human dominion to ecological dignity. We have reached the limits of technocratic solutions to ecological collapse. India's flagship Namami Gange mission, launched with fanfare by the PM in 2014, has spent tens of thousands of crores and built miles of sewage infrastructure. Yet, the state of the Yamuna river – an important tributary of Ganga – in Delhi remains a chemical soup, where, fish die-offs are routine, and residents routinely gag at its banks. No amount of money can save a river if its right to flow, breathe, and exist is not recognized in law. In February, a Supreme Court-appointed committee reported that illegal embankments had been constructed through Kalesar National Park, obstructing the Yamuna's natural flow. On paper, it was a clear violation of forest and water laws. But the implications ran deeper. These embankments were not just environmental infractions – they were symbolic of a larger rupture: the quiet, everyday mutilation of riverine systems under the guise of 'development.' When a river's path is bent without its consent, it is not merely diverted; it is disenfranchised. Climate activist Ridhima Pandey, who first came into national consciousness for suing the government over climate inaction stood against the Kalasa-Banduri diversion project in Karnataka. Her protest was against a legal structure that treats rivers as passive infrastructure rather than living systems with embedded rights. Not isolated acts of environmental negligence but democratic failures in slow motion These are not isolated acts of environmental negligence. They are democratic failures in slow motion. Rivers may not cast votes, but they irrigate the very geographies our electoral maps are drawn on. To exclude them from legal personhood is to ignore that their depletion undermines the people who depend on them and the constitutional promises made to those people. Critics scoff. They warn of legal absurdities. Who defends the river in court? Can a river own property? The answer lies not in abandoning the project but in refining it. Guardianship models – where citizens, tribal councils, or environmental boards act as legal stewards – have worked elsewhere. In New Zealand, Maori iwi serve as co-guardians. India, too, can empower communities that have lived with and for rivers, rather than outsourcing custodianship to bureaucratic boards 500 kilometers away. It is a reckoning with the doctrine of human supremacy. Our legal system, forged in colonial logic, sees rivers as resources, not relationships. They are either dams to be built or drains to be dredged. But this worldview has failed us. Climate change is not just an engineering challenge; it is a civilisational crisis. The law must evolve. To grant rivers rights is not to anthropomorphise them, but to decolonise the way we see the world. This is critical for their being and sustenance through a realisation, recognition of rights that matter. The Ganga, after all, has outlived empires. She will likely outlast this one too. But what shape will she take – choked and canalised, or flowing freely as a subject of law and reverence? Personhood is not a silver bullet. But it is a beginning. A way of saying: the river has been speaking all along. It's time we learned how to listen. Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
Is war risk covered by life insurance? It's never too late to check the policy's fine print
As the Iran–Israel war unfolds, it brings with it anxiety, headlines and human loss. For the world, it's a geopolitical crisis. But for thousands of Indian families, it's personal. There are an estimated 18,000 to 20,000 Indian nationals living in Israel, including students, skilled professionals and technical workers. In addition, over 85,000 Jews of Indian origin call Israel home, many of whom still have family in India, making this not just an international crisis but an emotional one for the Indian diaspora. One such tragedy struck recently. A young Indian engineer working in Tel Aviv was preparing to return home to Delhi. He had video-called his daughter and told her to finish her sign that read 'Welcome Home, Papa." The ticket was booked. The sweets were in the fridge. And then a missile struck. His name was among the casualties. Also Read: Healthcare for all: Don't rely on insurance alone The family's grief was instant, but what followed made it worse. When they reached out to the insurer, hoping for some support, they received a cold impersonal message: 'Claim denied under Clause XYZ—death due to war or war-like operations." There was no fraud. No error. Just a clause they had never paid attention to—one line buried in fine print that changed everything. The fine print could write your family's future: In most life insurance policies, death due to war or war-like situations is not covered for civilians. These exclusions are clearly outlined in the policy document, often under 'General Exclusions.' While some insurers offer optional riders or policies that include limited war-related cover, many do not. It is essential to understand what your policy excludes and not just what it promises. Unfortunately, many people skip this. According to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority's (IRDAI) 2024-25 annual report, one in four disputed life insurance claims were denied due to lack of awareness. These were not bad claims. They were uninformed ones. Also Read: Heath insurance in India ought to cover preventive care as well Insurance in India is stronger than ever but awareness must catch up: India's insurance ecosystem today is among the fastest evolving in the world thanks to IRDAI's progressive reforms. India reported a 98.6% claim settlement ratio in life insurance last year. It has introduced customer-friendly standard product structures, digitized initiatives like Bima Sugam and made disclosures and exclusions more transparent. The system is getting smarter, faster and more accessible. But one thing remains unchanged: policies only cover what they are broadly understood to cover. As the annual report highlighted, many disputed claims were denied not because of fraud but because families misunderstood what was covered. The rise of AI and disappearance of dialogue: Insurers today use artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline claims. Over 70% of global insurers now rely on algorithms to pre-screen documents and flag inconsistencies. It saves time. It filters fraud. But it also removes context. An outdated address, an undisclosed travel history, a forgotten declaration from years ago: to a person, these are human oversights. To a machine, they are grounds for rejection. And often, families don't get to have a conversation. They get an automated message. Claim readiness is the new insurance: Insurance isn't a file to keep in a drawer. It's the only document your family may reach when they can't reach you. Being claim-ready means reading your policy thoroughly, especially the exclusions section; updating it when your life changes (job moves, international travel, new responsibilities); telling your family what to do and who to call; keeping both digital and physical copies safe and accessible; adding riders for special risks if your lifestyle or profession demands it. It's not paranoia. It's love translated into action. Also Read: Earthquake insurance: India's coverage is woefully inadequate Ask these questions before it's too late: Instead of just 'How much insurance do I need?,' start asking the following. Will this policy protect my family if I die while working abroad? What happens if I'm in a country marked as a conflict zone? Are there riders available for such risks? Is there a manual review if AI rejects a claim? Will my nominee know what steps to take? Sometimes, the difference between a denied claim and a fulfilled promise is just a single question asked in time. Insurance is not about death; it's about continuation: If you're in your thirties or forties with children and/or ageing parents, or are working internationally, insurance isn't optional. It's foundational. But more than having it, you need to understand it. Choose policies that reflect your real life. Review them every year—don't set and forget. Speak to an advisor who listens, not just sells. And always, always read what seems 'small' because fine print often writes the biggest stories. The final gift we leave behind: We cannot control when or how life ends. But we can control what remains. A sense of direction. A helping hand. A system that supports, not surprises. Insurance isn't a backup. It's a goodbye that says: 'I thought of everything—even this.' So take a moment today. Read your policy. Ask uncomfortable questions. Because your family deserves more than a promise. They deserve certainty, not confusion. Compassion, not clauses. And support that doesn't disappear when they need it most. The author is joint chairman and MD, BajajCapital.
